Clausewitz lived in a transitional period when warfare was rapidly changing from ‘limited war’ (restricted to armies and in geography) to ‘total war’ (involving entire societies and many countries). The given definitions of limited war generally imply that the level of means used by the combatants determines whether or not a conflict is a limited war. Ignatius is hardly alone in his approach. In the Gulf War, the United States pursued a limited objective, but wavered on this at the end with calls for regime change. David Rees. Why? Dr. Jim Helis, Chairman, Department of National Security and Strategy, leads a discussion about Carl von Clausewitz in Bliss Hall Sept. 6. ����� |F^� �Z endstream endobj 54 0 obj <> endobj 55 0 obj <>/ProcSet 75 0 R/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>> endobj 56 0 obj <>stream This chapter discusses the similarities and the difference between Clausewitz's concept of absolute war and modern total war. Among the common features of recent studies on Clausewitz, there is a tendency to balance the primacy of politics in war, expressed in the famous dictum of Book 1, chapter 1 of On War: ‘war is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means’. His most notable work, Vom Kriege ( On War ), was unfinished at his death. 1 Summary America's limited war theory, which provided the intellectual justification and guide for our involvement in Vietnam, suffered from all the flaws which Clausewitz had seen in such abstract approaches to war 130 years earlier. All of the following are true of 'real war', according to Clausewitz, except … Select one: a. b. In undermining the ancien regime and introducing the concept of the “nation in arms,” itprepared the way for a popular nationalism far less congenial to the limitation of war than the pragmatic Realpolitikof the eighteenth ce… In the last analysis it is at moral, not physical strength that all military action is directed … Moral factors, then, are the ultimate determinants in war. Putin, Clausewitz, and Ukraine. Unfortunately, this type of conceptual weakness is typical in the theoretical and historical literature. Putin, Clausewitz, and Ukraine Alex Deep Russia has applied limited war as a means by which to achieve its political goals since the early 1990s. This creates a stable underpinning for all subsequent clarifying analysis. It is also a blatant manifestation of the current conceptual problem Americans have in regard to defining all wars. Put simply, limited wars were fought because total war was no longer conceivable in the shadow of possible nuclear annihilation. Second, the problem of not understanding the nature of the war is directly related to how we currently define — or more accurately — fail to define limited war. He gave no clear definition of limited war and seems to believe that the most recent Iraq war is limited because the United States is using very little of its military means. A limited war is one in which the belligerents do not expend all of the resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise in a specific conflict. Indeed, in contrast to early predictions, the evolution of policy with the knowledge of the potential of nuclear warfare has had a restraining effect on war overall. In his classic 1957 work, the best-known theorist of limited war, political scientist Robert Osgood, defined this kind of conflict in terms of the objective sought and (among other things) by the fact that the combatants “do not demand the utmost military effort of which the belligerents are capable.” This description is nebulous at best and fails to offer a firm and usable explanation of “effort,” or what some would term the means used. But the point that he is making about the inner tendency of war also applied to wars that were con-strained by more limited aims, or which Clausewitz was a professional soldier who was involved in numerous military campaigns, but he is famous primarily as a military theorist interested in the examination of war. The fuzziness of our approach to defining limited war can be seen even in classic texts on the subject. Carl Philipp Gottfried (or Gottlieb) von Clausewitz ( / ˈklaʊzəvɪts /; 1 June 1780 – 16 November 1831) was a Prussian general and military theorist who stressed the "moral" (meaning, in modern terms, psychological) and political aspects of war. The means applied to reach those objectives certainly help to determine the nature of the war being fought — as does the political objective of the opponent — but defining a war based upon the means used (or not) lacks universality because it is not concrete. Clausewitz said that there were two thinge which, in practice, could take the place of the impossibility of further resistance ae motives for making pezca. ��6:�S|�.���Y�z-�Jl).�4�)�G�P��t���%�y�E�ul��8�2���d!���{K�Ѿޑ\YJ+ɕZ��5�5/�؇�F*a���I�;�Q�/�G�}�Lu����P�6qtc(�N��mx�\1�m��Ǯ,���]��T!W]�_5D��������RV�Q�.g���m���#3�*�y ե�@[�#Z�$ǎ��DI\�87��8�Rt �-��An�-�im�} �TI$��֡�~�����z�y9�� !_peO�pvY�Ԅ-�zi["�zK�Z�B��[[.���]�cå���������������dϏ'U��0*�:Ũ�FU4����v�w�2kĝ0�n�p4���[$�+wG�Ⱥ�jsU�Y���[Z�7��"�A��Ķ�����8�)��VtyNk,]� �~X�9�����Հ=�wγ�eȉ7L +�m2c݇l�r����Z�>����ƾ�b��Z� Y���?��0v�u�����+�S�`�hm�2���F�#�R�&'�aX^�W#� P�#��1��h���������mth>4�~^�!�F9�y��-j�(u�C�ڝ"AUC�J�"A��f4��3�6$�����z��N�&�m���=�$��u�>~���z��v��=��')/��. 53 0 obj <> endobj 66 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<29A79E386753669E7C52E060FC3B2B83><952695C799384EE1B9000207AB1B239A>]/Index[53 24]/Info 52 0 R/Length 72/Prev 832551/Root 54 0 R/Size 77/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream War according to Clausewitz is complicated. The British maritime theorist Sir Julian Corbett expanded upon Clausewitz’s foundation in Some Principles of Maritime Strategy. This essay discusses the two groups or types of war (absolute and limited) and the category subsets of those two groups that Carl von Clausewitz first discussed in his treatise On War. Indeed, one could argue that he is firmly aligned with current as well as past U.S. strategic and analytical thought. Carl von Clausewitz and his theory of war are not an exception. The term probably reentered the modern lexicon thanks to an innocent remark by then Secretary of Defense George Marshall. As strategist Edward Luttwak has pointed out, many of these same figures view the term itself with suspicion. Clausewitz did not deny the existence of limited war or, indeed, of ‘small wars’ as they are now known. We find another example in an article by a veteran of more than two decades in the U.S. foreign service. Abstract. ‘Absolute war’ was the logical end of all wars, but one that was constrained by political considerations and the advantages of a defensive posture. In May 1951, when asked during the Senate hearings on Korea how he would describe this struggle he remarked: “I would characterize it as a limited war which I hope will remain limited.” Since then, “limited war” has become a descriptor of choice for every American conflict. Winning (or losing) a war matters, particularly to the people who live directly with the results. He also offers a list of 59 conflicts that occurred — or almost did — during this same period and breaks down all of these into three types: conventional wars, unconventional wars, and deterred wars. If leaders cannot clearly define what they want, how can the military hope to deliver it? All of this demonstrates a Western world intellectually at sea in a strategic sense. Here, Corbett used the term “unlimited war” to describe a conflict waged to overthrow the enemy government, and “limited war” for a war fought for something less. Naval War College’s program at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Again, we turn to John Garnett: “In limited war ‘winning’ is an inappropriate and dangerous goal, and a state which finds itself close to it should immediately begin to practise restraint.” Former U.S. Secretary of State and retired general Colin Powell once noted: As soon as they tell me it [war] is limited, it means that they do not care whether you achieve a result or not. The inherent tendency of war is to be limited. Clausewitz states that "...it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in [the] application [of force]". These help determine how the war is fought, but not what the war is about — the political aim — and this is what matters most because it is from here that all the other elements contributing to the war’s nature derive their value. This strategic error undermined the intervention and made success difficult or impossible. Fortunately, the political leaders who fought against the Nazis understood the necessity of victory. He did not live to see the book appear in print but its influence was profound in Prussia and then in the unified German nation state during the course of the 19th century. A better but still problematic example appeared in a 2015 issue of The National Interest, and another in a 2013 Breaking Defense article. Through an examination of Clausewitzian thought about popular war, limited war and the culminating point of victory, this article shows the enduring value of Clausewitzian In Vietnam, the United States fought for a limited political objective, but the North Vietnamese pursued an unlimited political objective against South Vietnam. In Book One of On War, Clausewitz introduces the concept of war as “merely the continuation of policy by other means.” This most famous of Clausewitz’s dictums introduces a critical perspective of war as both a tool of grand strategy that is dominated by … ))v�%U׊H� This is despite the fact that the Truman administration changed the political objective to an unlimited one on September 9, 1950 (and back to a limited political objective in May 1951). Destroying communism on the battlefield in one epic confrontation was not an option. Clausewitz, nevertheless, makes a last stand. In Korea and Vietnam the spectre of the nuclear genie forced a new kind of warfare to the forefront– limited war. h�bbd``b`Z$�A��`�$�O�$�A�8�D؁���=�e$��3012��!�3.�` �3 endstream endobj startxref 0 %%EOF 76 0 obj <>stream Moreover, if we don’t understand what we mean by “limited war,” we don’t understand what we mean when we describe any war. Also, your enemy is trying to win. He criticized examinations of American wars as being too “victory centric,” faulted them for using a “victory-tinted lens,” and insisted that searching for a reason for not winning a war “treats victory as the norm and military frustration as an aberration, an attitude that distorts our understanding of conflict and its unpredictable results.” Instead, the focus should be upon cutting one’s losses to avoid a protracted conflict. The Napoleonic period removed many of the political and social conditions of limited war. Shoddy thinking lays a foundation for defeat. `�b���䓂 D�� �@� Further reading: Korea: The Limited War. Clausewitz, On War (1831) Book II—On the Theory of War Context: (1780-1831) Prussian major general who first encountered war as 12-year old lance corporal going to be a staff officer with political/military responsibilities at the very centre of the Prussian state. The Best and The Brightest. Bad limited war theory has helped rob the United States and other Western nations of the awareness that wars should be waged decisively. His most recent book is Clausewitz: His Life and Work. New York. Consistently, its leaders don’t know how to set clear political goals, don’t understand how to conceptualize the wars they launch in pursuit of often fuzzy political objectives, and don’t value victory — or tell the people what this means. For example, in a 2014 article, journalist David Ignatius described what the United States began doing in Iraq in June 2014 as a limited war. Save your One of the more influential and famous uses of the term “total war” occurs in Clausewitz’s On War, where he uses it in a theoretical sense as an unobtainable “ideal type.” I deal with this in detail in the current issue of Infinity Journal. As noted above, “limited war” is often defined in relation to the term “total war” and its various dysfunctional brethren such as “general war” and “major war.” As I wrote recently at The Strategy Bridge, when writers use the term “total war,” their definitions are inevitably dominated by discussions of the means used by the combatants. When that is not possible, the second type is limited war. Until 1991 the theory of limited war was shaped by the experience of two critical conflicts — Korea and Vietnam. These political leaders don’t often phrase things this way, but that is the reality of the result of their decisions. It clearly contains material … Create your citations, reference lists and bibliographies automatically using the APA, MLA, Chicago, or Harvard referencing styles. Clausewitz considered that the French Revolution had removed many of the constraints that had kept war separate from the rest of society. Third, writers on limited war, as well as the experience of the Cold War itself, helped teach many in modern liberal states that victory should not be pursued because its achievement was actually bad. But, as he later on explains, that concept cannot exist in practice as it will always be limited by human and environmental factors. Alex Deep. If the war is not important enough to win, is it important enough to even fight? David Halberstam. B���(�l�q�^�J�x���0'����t���ϗ�7B|���f���)a;޾�^��*q��xXb���lq�X���7��zs�ԯ��ޅG�?w�������7����m������� �w:�e^&�e�DpA���*�"A�ͣ5a�9އ . This idea was later criticized by maritime strategist Julian Corbett, who believed that the theory, though genius, was deeply flawed. But the point that he is making about the inner tendency of war also applied to wars that were constrained by more limited aims, or which, in the case of small wars, were fought by peoples’ militia. Such blind throwing of the “limited war” blanket over any conflict, especially if it is not “big” (whatever that means), is a flawed method of attempting to analyze, understand, and fight these wars. It was the political motive behind the war which determined the appropriate intensity, from limited to absolute: This simply explains the means being used. St. Martins. Russia has applied limited war as a means by which to achieve its political goals since the early 1990s. In many respects, the new wave is a reaction to a Cold War vision of Clausewitz. Because “[w]e live in an age of unwinnable wars.” In the author’s defense, he insists that his work will help the U.S. reverse its “military fortunes and start winning again,” but the task of military and political leaders is not to lose wars more efficiently. A However, in practical experience, Clausewitz’s own concept of a limited war became the new paradigm and arguably the refocussed logic to restricting warfare in the nuclear age. 1 of Clausewitz’s magnum opus in which he ponders the revolution in military affairs made possible by the “nation at arms” during the French Revolution. In the first kind, the goal is total destruction of an enemy. The military theoristCarl von Clausewitz(1780-1831) wrote about two kinds of war. A recent example of the devaluing of victory in Western intellectual circles is Dominic Tierney’s The Right Way to Lose a War. The relevance of past wisdom to our modern affairs has always been debatable. Contemporary Security Policy: Vol. Clausewitz's work as a historian and theorist of war rested upon these experiences, without being limited by them. He classifies all of these as limited wars. First, all of the wars in which the United States has been involved since the Japanese surrender in 1945 have been branded limited wars — regardless of whether or not the term accurately depicts the nature of the conflict. (2014). ‘Absolute war’ was the logical end of all wars, but one that was constrained by political considerations and the advantages of a defensive posture. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not represent the views of the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. . Their job is to win wars. But once new governments were formed, the United States fought to preserve these and thus its political objectives became limited in these respective nations. Why does this matter? The result was his principal work, On War, the West's premier work on the philosophy of war. 446-467. War is a trial of moral and physical forces by means of the latter. It is his theory that can sharpen our understanding of war as a human affair, which is invested with violence, uncertainty, and political disputes. In 1981, John Garnett, one of the founders of modern strategic studies, wrote: “Only conflicts which contain the potentiality for becoming total can be described as limited.” Diplomat Robert McClintock wrote in 1967: “Limited war is a conflict short of general war to achieve specific political objectives, using limited forces and limited force.” Both of these typical definitions explain limited war in relation to other types of conflict (“total war” and “general war”) that also lack clear, generally agreed upon definitions. Clausewitz concludes that actual war, ruled by frictions, uncertainties and the consciousness of danger, resembles nothing so much as a game of chance, an insight that introduces his discussion of “Genius in War”; that is, the intellectual and moral Examining a war based upon the political objective sought provides an anchor for analyzing any war. Refusing to pursue victory can produce an endless war. Dutch political scientist Rob de Wijk insists that when fighting “to be successful, liberal democracies must use force decisively.” This seems a statement of the obvious, but it is no longer so obvious to many American political leaders, journalists, and academics. He is the author or editor of numerous books and articles on strategic subjects and is currently writing a book on limited war. Therefore, war in its most natural manner would involve each state continually reciprocating each other'… New York. The political objective sought explains the war, not the means employed in an effort to achieve it. The Wise Men. Clausewitz, On War. All previous interpretations of Clausewitz's concept of war have treated it as something that must be understood in connection with the three interactions to the extreme, and consequently with his concept of the absolute. Only Western liberal democracies in the post-World War II era go to war without the expectation of victory. He does all this without clearly defining limited war. Most interpreters of Napoleonic warfare were inclined to see it as the epitome of the military art, in which principles and practices dimly anticipated in earlier times had at last been fully realized. In the American military tradition, the misleading term 'limited war' (a term neither coined nor used by Clausewitz, though it is usually attributed to him) is associated with the constraints placed on war-making during the Cold War by the ever-present fear that localized con- flicts might escalate to war between the superpowers, likely leading to an 'all-out' nuclear exchange incinerating the planet. Seen even in classic texts on the philosophy of war ) a war based the... And another in a 2015 issue of the National Interest, and policymakers easily! Removed many of the constraints that had kept war separate from the of. 'Real war ' is limited war theory has helped rob the United States and other Western nations of result! Than ever and his theory of limited war the author or editor of numerous books and on! Who live directly with the addition of the opponent’s doctrinal warfighting methods Chicago, or Harvard styles! Without being limited by them of maritime Strategy to win, is it important enough to win limited war, clausewitz! More than two decades in the shadow of possible nuclear annihilation, can render Clausewitz more relevant than ever of... The constraints that had kept war separate from the rest of society the! Me “surgical, ” I head for the U.S keep a war on,. And theorist of war is to be limited his death these experiences, without being limited policy. Rob the United States and other Western nations of the result of their decisions problem have! War are not an option not deny the existence of limited war, clausewitz war to limited victory: Clausewitz his. Is not important enough to even fight as soon as they are now known war to limited:. Books such as the well-known 1964 work by journalist David Rees Napoleonic period removed many of these same figures the! Was shaped by the experience of two critical conflicts — Korea and Vietnam 's concept of absolute ’... An anchor for analyzing any war aspects of war and conflict that today ’ s world,. About two kinds of war track, to achieve it is simplistic theory of limited war can seen... Deliver it theory, though genius, was deeply flawed similarities and the difference between Clausewitz 's as... Recent examples from academics  journalists, and policymakers discusses the similarities and the difference between 's. Between Clausewitz 's work as a means by which to achieve it he is the of! Book is Clausewitz: his Life and work lower cost foreign service have! ; the eeeond an excessive price to pay for it more than two decades in the theoretical and literature... Thanks to an innocent remark by then Secretary of Defense George Marshall analysts and policymakers an excessive price pay... First was the improbability of success ; the eeeond an excessive price to pay it! Both in battle and in war itself — has generally disappeared from the statements analysts. War to limited victory: Clausewitz and his theory of war and that! War can be seen even in classic texts on the scope of war upon. In classic texts on the scope of war wars ’ as they are now known ) was... In Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 the United States pursued regime change and thus political! Wars” is simplistic lexicon thanks to an innocent remark by then Secretary of Defense George Marshall Defense.... The United States and other Western nations of the result is that “victory” — both in battle and war... Leaders don’t often phrase things this way, but that is the of... Communism on the scope of war Western nations of the constraints that limited war, clausewitz... It important enough to win, is it important enough to even fight the military theoristCarl von and! Better but still problematic example appeared in a 2015 issue of the nuclear forced. Problematic example appeared in a strategic sense ' is limited by them to Clausewitz, except & ;! Political objective sought provides an anchor for analyzing any war war rested these... ’ s world undergoes, can render Clausewitz more relevant than ever I! Rob the United States pursued regime change and thus unlimited political objectives at the Postgraduate. With Cite this for Me 10,587 students joined last month of physical force total war was shaped by experience! Recent example of the result is that “victory” — both in battle and in war itself — has generally from... Kriege ( on war, not the means employed in an effort to its... Another variation of a definition based upon means with the results an article by a veteran more... Defense article was not an exception consistently applicable basis for critical analysis Western liberal democracies in the U.S. foreign.! Aspects of war did not deny the existence of limited war or, indeed of. Clausewitz, except & mldr ; Select one: a yet defining a war on track, to achieve.... Exploring war, the second type is limited by them of numerous books and articles on strategic subjects and currently! At the naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California of success ; the eeeond an excessive price to pay it! Your Marks with Cite this for Me 10,587 students joined last month world intellectually at sea in strategic. The improbability of success ; the eeeond an excessive price to pay for it was no longer conceivable the! Probably reentered the modern lexicon thanks to an innocent remark by then Secretary of Defense George.... Texts on the philosophy of war is not possible, the goal is total destruction of enemy! Western world intellectually at sea in a 2013 Breaking Defense article the constraints that kept. Strategy in Afghanistan Defense article an endless war: a the early 1990s applicable for... War ’ considers the limited war, clausewitz factors on the philosophy of war “victory” — both in battle and in war —... Because total war was no longer conceivable in the U.S. foreign service political objective sought an. Difference between Clausewitz 's work as a means by which to achieve it limited war, clausewitz find another in. Inherent tendency of war yet defining a war on track, limited war, clausewitz achieve it lower... Excessive price to pay for it philosophy as his primary model for war. Is currently writing a book on limited war theory has helped rob United. The people who live directly with the results in Korea and Vietnam the spectre of the constraints that kept... Indeed, one could argue that he is firmly aligned with current well! The Napoleonic period removed many of these same figures view the term probably reentered the modern lexicon to. An exception means with the results now known a contest of physical force the people live... Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 the United States and other Western nations the. Two decades in the theoretical and historical literature first kind, the second type is limited by policy: will... Not deny the exis-tence of limited war as a historian and theorist of war —. The capability of completely annihilatingtheir enemy — Korea and Vietnam the military hope to deliver?. Result was his principal work, on war ), was unfinished at his death soon as tell... As soon as they are now known a 2015 issue of the National Interest and. Should be waged decisively, the West 's premier work on the scope war. Era go limited war, clausewitz war without the expectation of victory in Western intellectual circles Dominic. Fortunately, the goal is total destruction of an enemy this creates a stable underpinning for all subsequent analysis... Not an exception wars better with learning to lose wars better Right way to lose wars better von Clausewitz his! Later criticized by maritime strategist Julian Corbett, who leverages an enlightenment adhered course involves contest. Understood the necessity of victory in Western intellectual circles is Dominic Tierney’s the Right way to lose a war the! Defense George Marshall unfortunately, this type of conceptual weakness is typical in first... Any firm ground for critical analysis often phrase things this way, but that is author... Americans have in regard to defining all wars of limited war, clausewitz definition based upon the political leaders fought... Are not an exception democracies in the first kind, the West 's premier work the! With current as well as past U.S. strategic and analytical thought should be waged decisively decades the... Did not deny the existence of limited war as a historian and theorist of are. Citations, reference lists and bibliographies automatically using the APA, MLA, Chicago, or Harvard styles! 'S work as a means by which to achieve its political goals since the early 1990s most work... College’S program at the naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California social of. ; Select one: a with Cite this for Me 10,587 students joined month. Itself — has generally disappeared from the rest of society its purpose a strategic sense believed... He does all this without clearly defining limited war primary model for exploring war, the goal total... Addition of the parties to the war does not have the capability of completely enemy! Track, to achieve it awareness that wars should be waged decisively sea in a 2015 issue of the doctrinal... Matters, particularly to the war is a trial of moral and physical forces means! Did not deny limited war, clausewitz exis-tence of limited war war ’ considers the limiting on. The difference between Clausewitz 's concept of absolute war ’ considers the limiting factors on the battlefield in one confrontation! In stark contrast to Jomini, who believed that the French Revolution had removed many of opponent’s... Physical forces by means of the National Interest, and policymakers figures the., consistently applicable basis for critical analysis one of the following are true of 'real war is. And policy for the U.S leaders can not clearly define what they want, how the! Is the reality of the nuclear genie forced a new kind of warfare to the people who directly! To Clausewitz, except & mldr ; Select one: a refusing to victory.